EPCOT New Park Entrance coming to Epcot

[lazyboy97o]

Well stated. I was lucky enough to have experienced that “mistake”, and loved that “mistake”, but am clear headed enough to realize that yes, it was an experiment, experience, and product, not of even it’s time, but of about a decade before. It was amazing, but our world has changed. I do think there are more elements of its original ideals that could be included in its reimagining, but I totally see the why they are doing what they are doing.

You don’t use the imagery and iconography of a mistake to sell something “new”.

 

[Brenthodge]

You don’t use the imagery and iconography of a mistake to sell something “new”.

Mistake was probably not the best choice of words, but I get what he is saying. EPCOT center was an attempt at reconciling a visionary dream of Disney with a reality that could actually happen. I feel like it was a project that needed to happen and Disney changed because of it, but shifts in management thinking since it’s inception no longer align with its ideals.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Mistake was probably not the best choice of words, but I get what he is saying. EPCOT center was an attempt at reconciling a visionary dream of Disney with a reality that could actually happen. I feel like it was a project that needed to happen and Disney changed because of it, but shifts in management thinking since it’s inception no longer align with its ideals.

Shifts in management, not a problem with the park, especially the idea that it was a financial failure. None of his issues of aesthetics or costs are being addressed either.

 

[Brenthodge]

Shifts in management, not a problem with the park, especially the idea that it was a financial failure. None of his issues of aesthetics or costs are being addressed either.

While it was successful out of the gate, Short term gain vs long term investment can apply here. The financial model they funded the park on was flawed and became more so over time. The fact that mgmt didn’t restructure that in a way that assumed Disney would foot more of the bill caused more problems. I think they continued down an unsustainable path far too long hoping “someone else” would find the major updates needed. No I’ve did, and THEY didn’t, so now we are at the place that I think current mgmt sees the core mission as unrelatable now and is looking for “long game” solutions that won’t get them back into the situation their poor management got them to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

While it was successful out of the gate, Short term gain vs long term investment can apply here. The financial model they funded the park on was flawed and became more so over time. The fact that mgmt didn’t restructure that in a way that assumed Disney would foot more of the bill caused more problems. I think they continued down an unsustainable path far too long hoping “someone else” would find the major updates needed. No I’ve did, and THEY didn’t, so now we are at the place that I think current mgmt sees the core mission as unrelatable now and is looking for “long game” solutions that won’t get them back into the situation their poor management got them to.

Disney spent decades trying to not invest in all of the parks. The fundamental changes with their business that made this an issue across the board have not changed and will not be changed by this project.

 

[Brenthodge]

Disney spent decades trying to not invest in all of the parks. The fundamental changes with their business that made this an issue across the board have not changed and will not be changed by this project.

I’m confused. So are you for or against tap lights added onto spaceship earth? I’ve lost you here.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m confused. So are you for or against tap lights added onto spaceship earth? I’ve lost you here.

Disney has spent nearly $1 billion to fix Disney’s Animal Kingdom and over $1 billion to fix Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Both still need work, but nobody talks about them being these huge failures that just don’t work even though you can look at animals and watch movies on your phone.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The original desire and even successful anticipation was hampered by time and social changes. The areas referred to here are the permanent Worlds Fair segment. The major thing that happened was the start up cost that was really prohibitive for a lot of locations (countries) and many still were considering adding in later if they saw it as a successful media for promoting their country. That was the draw for the big Worlds Fairs that I experienced. It was a way for a company/country to have exposure to millions of people and having a continuous advertisement running every day and all day of every year. When figuring the cost over 10 years they only avenue of comparison they had was advertising standard at the time. TV and Print. When you took the cost and divided it by the number of minutes in the day the cost per minute of continuous advertising was amazingly small.

Then shortly after Epcot opened two things happened one was the internet. The ability for a company to get its word out for almost nothing. The other thing was technology! Not only did that improve the ability of companies and/or countries to get their message out inexpensively but it also slammed the brakes on at FutureWorld because they couldn't build/update things as fast as technology was changing. By the time they could get something built, it was already obsolete. It was a great idea when conceived, but just couldn't keep up with and compete with a changing world.

Another drawback with technology was again the internet. I went to EPCOT Ctr. in February 1983. EPCOT was about 4 months old at the time. Over the next few years they still added things to the entire park. To those of us that didn't have access to the board room didn't really know the degree of anticipation that was expected to happen. So we, fat, dumb and happy saw Epcot as a wonderful complete location. Marvelously engineered and planned and just plainly thought that all the expectations were met. We didn't know that it didn't live up to the hopes, we just thought it was great. It was sort of like going to your favorite store and all of a sudden seeing a whole lot of empty shelves when it was revealed just how far from the target they had landed.

 

[Brenthodge]

Disney has spent nearly $1 billion to fix Disney’s Animal Kingdom and over $1 billion to fix Disney’s Hollywood Studios. Both still need work, but nobody talks about them being these huge failures that just don’t work even though you can look at animals and watch movies on your phone.

I don’t think “look at animals” and “watch movies” are the core mission statements of those respective parks.

 

[Brenthodge]

The original desire and even successful anticipation was hampered by time and social changes. The areas referred to here are the permanent Worlds Fair segment. The major thing that happened was the start up cost that was really prohibitive for a lot of locations (countries) and many still were considering adding in later if they saw it as a successful media for promoting there country. That was the draw for the big Worlds Fairs that I experienced. It was a way for a company/country to have exposure to millions of people and having a continuous advertisement running every day and all day of every year. When figuring the cost over 10 years they only avenue of comparison they had was advertising standard at the time. TV and Print. When you took the cost and divided it by the number of minutes in the day the cost per minute of continuous advertising was amazingly small.

Then shortly after Epcot opened two things happened one was the internet. The ability for a company to get its word out for almost nothing. The other thing was technology! Not only did that improve the ability of companies and/or countries to get their message out inexpensively but it also slammed the brakes on at FutureWorld because they couldn't build/update things as fast as technology was changing. By the time they could get something built, it was already obsolete. It was a great idea when conceived, but just couldn't keep up with and compete with a changing world.

Another drawback with technology was again the internet. I went to EPCOT Ctr. in February 1983. EPCOT was about 4 months old at the time. Over the next few years they still added things to the entire park. To those of us that didn't have access to the board room didn't really know the degree of anticipation that was expected to happen. So we, fat, dumb and happy saw Epcot as a wonderful complete location. Marvelously engineered and planned and just plainly thought that all the expectations were met. We didn't know that it didn't live up to the hopes, we just thought it was great. It was sort of like going to your favorite store and all of a sudden seeing a whole lot of empty shelves when it was revealed just how far from the target they had landed.

Good arguments (a bit hard to read in a few places due to odd punctuation, but... typing on phones) and what I’ve been saying. The general public wasn’t aware of missed metrics, failed goals and unrealized expectations of Disney mgmnt. We only saw a “perfect passion project” that from the day it opened, was doomed to fail if it stuck exactly to the core vision and operating model as designed (and as we hoped it would) to say it was a success just because we loved it, or it even met and exceeded attendance projections doesn’t account fir all of the metrics and nuances of the ways the final project was evaluated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Good arguments (a bit hard to read in a few places due to odd punctuation, but... typing on phones) and what I’ve been saying. The general public wasn’t aware of missed metrics, failed goals and unrealized expectations of Disney mgmnt. We only saw a “perfect passion project” that from the day it opened, was doomed to fail if it stuck exactly to the core vision and operating model as designed (and as we hoped it would) to say it was a success just because we loved it, or it even met and exceeded attendance projections doesn’t account fir all of the metrics and nuances of the ways the final project was evaluated.

What metrics did EPCOT Center fail?

 

[Brenthodge]

We don’t know. The company didn’t publish them. They didn’t post what their expected marks were and where specific components didn’t meet those internal goals. You want so bad for the original park to be the same success for the company that it was for you, and clearly, due to a variety of factors, some internal and some external, it wasn’t. Objectives change, culture and operational climates change, public “appetites” change. I don’t agree with many of the changes (or lack of changes) Disney made with Epcot, but I’m open minded enough to see why we are at this point. Others are not.

 

[UNCgolf]

We don’t know. The company didn’t publish them. They didn’t post what their expected marks were and where specific components didn’t meet those internal goals. You want so bad for the original park to be the same success for the company that it was for you, and clearly, due to a variety of factors, some internal and some external, it wasn’t. Objectives change, culture and operational climates change, public “appetites” change. I don’t agree with many of the changes (or lack of changes) Disney made with Epcot, but I’m open minded enough to see why we are at this point. Others are not.

Most indications are that the park was incredibly successful for the first decade or so of its existence. It's decline really corresponded with the start of changes to the original park -- changes were necessary, but they generally made changes that resulted in a decrease in the park's overall quality rather than an increase. It's not a stretch to blame Disney's mismanagement of the park throughout the 90s and early 2000s for its eventual failure state.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Good arguments (a bit hard to read in a few places due to odd punctuation, but... typing on phones) and what I’ve been saying. The general public wasn’t aware of missed metrics, failed goals and unrealized expectations of Disney mgmnt. We only saw a “perfect passion project” that from the day it opened, was doomed to fail if it stuck exactly to the core vision and operating model as designed (and as we hoped it would) to say it was a success just because we loved it, or it even met and exceeded attendance projections doesn’t account fir all of the metrics and nuances of the ways the final project was evaluated.

Well, it was a success for us and for the time. It just wasn't able to continue on that path due to changes that happened outside of their control. I thought it was a huge success, but I wasn't paying the bills and had no way of knowing just how it was working out. To begin with both MK and EPCOT were basically the same ball park because one ticket took care of admission prices for both. Although they did have via the entry turnstiles an idea how many people were attending both, there was no mechanical way to know if the ticket price should be split in two or just one park. The were paper tickets that were punched to single hole punches, nothing electronic or even slightly identifying full day paid admission or shared. At that time one could also buy partially used tickets in gift shops all along 192. So they were working on head counts and not all heads counted as extra income.

 

[Brenthodge]

Most indications are that the park was incredibly successful for the first decade or so of its existence. It's decline really corresponded with the start of changes to the original park -- changes were necessary, but they generally made changes that resulted in a decrease in the park's overall quality rather than an increase. It's not a stretch to blame Disney's mismanagement of the park throughout the 90s and early 2000s for its eventual failure state.

And at that 10 year mark was when the realities of the shifted business model and the speed at which the "future" was being realized started becoming undeniable. I think at that point was when Disney realized that the model was flawed, but instead of going back to the "source material" and looking at how the core mission could be kept (and even enhanced with the new realities in technology and information availability that the park was facing), they instead dug into the corporate sponsorship model further - either using it as a reason to make changes that altered the vision for the park (new Imagination, test track), or used it to defer ANY changes, which simply eroded the aging areas of the park at an even more rapid pace.

 

[Brenthodge]

Well, it was a success for us and for the time. It just wasn't able to continue on that path due to changes that happened outside of their control. I thought it was a huge success, but I wasn't paying the bills and had no way of knowing just how it was working out. To begin with both MK and EPCOT were basically the same ball park because one ticket took care of admission prices for both. Although they did have via the entry turnstiles an idea how many people were attending both, there was no mechanical way to know if the ticket price should be split in two or just one park. The were paper tickets that were punched to single hole punches, nothing electronic or even slightly identifying full day paid admission or shared. At that time one could also buy partially used tickets in gift shops all along 192. So they were working on head counts and not all heads counted as extra income.

right - the pedestrian evaluation of the success of a product is VERY different than the internal, corporate evaluation of it. It was amazing. Im glad I experienced it. I wish there was a way to bring some of that back (there is - its just no the direction they are going), and I am going to have to be OK with all of that. I can move on.

 

[Goofyernmost]

And at that 10 year mark was when the realities of the shifted business model and the speed at which the "future" was being realized started becoming undeniable. I think at that point was when Disney realized that the model was flawed, but instead of going back to the "source material" and looking at how the core mission could be kept (and even enhanced with the new realities in technology and information availability that the park was facing), they instead dug into the corporate sponsorship model further - either using it as a reason to make changes that altered the vision for the park (new Imagination, test track), or used it to defer ANY changes, which simply eroded the aging areas of the park at an even more rapid pace.

Don't forget that they had also initially sold out to the sponsors that had huge say in what happened. They didn't know anything about theme parks but they did know how much money Disney was billing them for and they wanted what they wanted. Some things stayed the same for a long time but others with strong outside influence changed just not for the better.

 

[Brenthodge]

Don't forget that they had also initially sold out to the sponsors that had huge say in what happened. They didn't know anything about theme parks but they did know how much money Disney was billing them for and they wanted what they wanted. Some things stayed the same for a long time but others with strong outside influence changed just not for the better.

right - again why the model was flawed form the beginning for those who want the park they visited in 1982. What made it possible was also what was also a big part of what caused it to evolve into something they don't support. It's like how I say Macy's saved the regional department stores by killing the regional department stores. (of course, now they are in danger of not even pulling that off any more)

 

[Goofyernmost]

right - the pedestrian evaluation of the success of a product is VERY different than the internal, corporate evaluation of it. It was amazing. Im glad I experienced it. I wish there was a way to bring some of that back (there is - its just no the direction they are going), and I am going to have to be OK with all of that. I can move on.

Just from personal experience, you didn't have to be a brain surgeon to see the difference in attractions like Horizons and Imagination concerning the numbers of people going to each. In the early 80s those queue lines where huge with all kinds of switch backs. They moved quickly because the per hour ridership capability was huge. By the time that 10 years got there, all those were walk on. That is physical evidence that interest was waning and the majority of the public was no longer interested in what was there. Plus another park had been built that took people away from Epcot. That is why I have always ask why having a fifth park would be beneficial when they aren't able to keep up with the four they already have.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We don’t know. The company didn’t publish them. They didn’t post what their expected marks were and where specific components didn’t meet those internal goals. You want so bad for the original park to be the same success for the company that it was for you, and clearly, due to a variety of factors, some internal and some external, it wasn’t. Objectives change, culture and operational climates change, public “appetites” change. I don’t agree with many of the changes (or lack of changes) Disney made with Epcot, but I’m open minded enough to see why we are at this point. Others are not.

Again, you’re ignoring the larger context of what was also happening with the parks to prop up this tired, false narrative that EPCOT Center was somehow a failure. It was the scapegoat for Roy Disney’s coup and the story has been repeated over and over. The park was a financial success. The park is still a cultural success, which is why “New” Epcot is wrapped in its imagery. Across the board the parks were neglected. Sponsorships were more prevalent at Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom in the past but nobody ever suggested closing Space Mountain. It’s all been topped off by the last fifteen years, a period when the parks were shopped around, original attractions banned despite the success of the Nondescript Coaster Themed Like India or Whatever and, most critically to sponsorship of attractions and exhibits, costs have spiraled wildly out of control such that what once bought a Nondescript Coaster now doesn’t even buy Pixar Pier.